If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

psychobabbling

After some initial doubt, I've for several reasons decided to start this topic. Most likely it will die a silent and unmourned death. We shall see.

First I want myself and the closet-sextourists to get out of each others' hair. I can't abide the fourletter words, the bad spelling, braggings and "I almost made it" stories, spiced with expressions like "hot babes" etc. On the other hand the !!!!WOW!!! types do not like words with many syl-lab-les, so here such is concentrated in one place, which they can avoid. In other words, the contributers to this topic can, without interference, bore each other to death, if we wish to.

Next: Having a soft spot for conspiracy theories I'm convinced, that not only anti-scammers read anti-scam sites, a lot of other groups do it also. The scammers themselves, agency representatives, ultrafeminists (just-hating-men-on-general-principles), chatters (having nothing to say, but doing it with many words) and those just curious. The possibilty of disinformation is real, but maybe it's possible to suppress it by being longwinded and circumstantial.

And last, the most important. Internet-dating is after all only one aspect of the the eternal "war of the sexes". To understand net-dating, I believe it's necessary to paint a broader background canvas. Say, are we just a bunch of grumpy querulants or is there really a difference between not being able to get along with your next-door childhood love and a FSUW? Where and what is the difference? Even without a computer, a different cultural background or alcoholism, Sue-Ellen could still be a conartist or pro-dater. Especially if she's good-looking.

I'm not completely sceptical about FSU dating (internet or not). In the last app. 18 years I've had three longer relationships (in the biblical sense) with SFUW, lasting alltogether 14 years. These relationships broke up for the same personal reasons, as any other relationships do. And I've had my share of scandinavian psychos. For me the question is the PROBABILITY of meeting "straights" or "bends" in each group.

So I invite for wievs on this. And I have a few proposals for background-basics:

I believe, that we like all other animals fundamentally are biological robots. We have a digestive system with two openings, a need to reproduce and to fight for a place in a predatory system. That's our startingpoint. But compared to other animals, we also have rather complex emotions and intellect. We have a possibility, individually or culturally, to be more than just reptile-brained. And different individuals/cultures/subcultures use this possibility in various degrees.

And I also suggest to sort out the differences between women and men. For the present bunch of probably half-machos it's maybe an idiotic question. But believe me, in this time of unisex, feminism, equal opportunities and so on, the issue has seriously, repeatedly and heatedly been raised, if there IS any difference (in spite of different plumbing and men's inability to get pregnant). I strongly support the idea, that women and men are almost different species, and as in any other contact with ETs, we need a lot of diplomacy to establish peaceful contact.

"Now you sound a little like me. You see, my whole problem with trying to find the mathematical equation for "EVERYTHING" is that, how do you assign a number to what you call chaos?"

You can only find equations inside cosmos. In chaos it's completely different; f.ex. natural laws as we know them don't exist, and there's no matter or anything. The only way to experience chaos is to go there and look for yourself. According to my own experiences and to other more heavy chaos-journeying dudes (the mystics), the "mind"theory seems to be the most likely. It means, that to experience chaos, you have to change yourself, so you can experience this "mind"state.

I have some good news for you, so you don't have to worry about using illegal drugs or spend 15 years in a cave alone.
Tantric sex is a 'beeb' of a good method for finding reality (that's how I see chaos). The only problem is, that you must find a partner, who's able to join with you in this process. I dooooon't think, that UA dreamingladies abound in such.

"Okay... So what caused the bang?"

Last time I answered this question, you thought I was a scientific wimp, because I said, I believe in the theory of intelligent design. So this time I will say, that I believe that some "higher power" did it. It means the same. Call it god, if it's more your line. I'm still not sufficiently advanced to have met this gentle(wo)man, and considering the quality of his handiwork (the universe), I'm not quite sure, I want to either.

"I say that no thing can come from nothing."

Sure it can. 0= + 1 + (- 1). Ex.: You haven't got a dime. You go to the bank and borrow 2 grand. Now you have two grand in your pocket and two grand in debt (though you still own zero). In certain circumstances two opposite charged and equally strong particles can be created from "nothing". Actually this theory about something from nothing was suggested in 1973 by a physicist called Ed Tryon. I arrived at it in a different way, than he did, which only makes it more acceptable to me.

"Of course the next logical question might be, where did this intelligence come from? Oh what a twisted road to go down!!!"

If there's no natural laws, no time, space, matter or energy causality (cause and effect) breaks down. As I've written before, such a state would look like "magic" or supernatural to us. If there's no need for causality, questions about causality are meaningless. Such situations are outside our scope to percieve/imagine. We can only think of it in intellectual terms.

After a few beers, it'll be clear as....as beer to you.

Poor little Olgas.

I believe you can get NCD's at a fundamentalist muslim shop. Look in the corner, where they have all the other woman camouflage equipment.

Hey swede! I'm going to take this a bit out of order although not quite entering chaos.

quote:Sure it can. 0= + 1 + (- 1).

In away, you have helped to make my point. You still have 0... nothing. When all is said and done, nothing is what it is. You can interchange infinite positive and negative numbers, but the end result will always be zero.

Since the known universe is made up of far more atoms with positively charged protons, than anti-matter with it's negatively charged protons, balance is lost and zero, or nothing no longer remains a viable starting point in the equation.

Again, this is why I believe that there is "something" more behind the creation of the universe than what can be explained by science. And so I also ask, where did chaos come from? If the origine of the universe is from chaos, what created chaos? Again I look to my spiritual beliefs. As you say, call it what you will, but as I think about what you have proposed, I now wonder about the origin of chaos itself???

I have dicussed the NERTS situation with the three Olgas, and they have collectively decided that they wish to keep their NERTS in tact. I see no choice but to sub come to their wishes, as there was a reference made to "Black Power", Malcolm X and giving Al Sharpton a call??? I really need to find out what the 'beep' these girls are watching on TV when I'm at work aside from classic "Green Acres" reruns...

"In away, you have helped to make my point. You still have 0... nothing. When all is said and done, nothing is what it is. You can interchange infinite positive and negative numbers, but the end result will always be zero."

Yes. In this case the zero is the startingpoint, chaos. The various positive and negative numbers are what is manifested in the universe as all its different charged parts. Remember that the example with plus and minus one was a simple one.
In the universe there exist several sets of opposite charged parts. There can even be three differently charged parts as a result of zero being split up. Think of a three-dimensional coordinatesystem.

"Since the known universe is made up of far more atoms with positively charged protons, than anti-matter with it's negatively charged protons, balance is lost and zero, or nothing no longer remains a viable starting point in the equation."

As you mention protons as your example, I will use this, and stick to the electrical charge. For an antimatter proton there exists a more immediate opposite: The antimatter electron, which will give an electric zero with the proton. So the
zero idea still holds.

But my main reason for believing in a creating power is, that although the zero-point idea is almost 100% correct, someone (the creator) messed a little bit with it from the start. Had the universe been completely symmetrical, it would have collapsed on itself a few zillionparts of a second after the banging. One of the current theories is, that gravity is not, what it should be. Some part of it has been put "elsewhere", so the original zero-point of origin still holds. But this is just speculations sofar.

"If the origine of the universe is from chaos, what created chaos?"

As I said in my last post, it is not possible to use models as effect/cause in chaos. Time does not exist, neither does matter, energy or space. So in chaos there can be no before or after, no cause or effect, as we know these principles from inside the universe. It is quite possible, that chaos has its own inner system for functioning, but it will be so strange, that it will be impossible for us to understand it with our normal consciousness.

Isn't it just typical of FSUW to react this way. Being obstinate, threatening and hostile. In spite of the fact, that all three will be dead from pneumonia in less than a year. Try Tanyas next time, it's my impression, that they are more agreeable.

Have you noticed, that a new type of commercials are turning up at the top of this topic. Books about evolutiontheory and today something about "Origin of the universe".

I have on another track today made some nasty comments as an answer to a suggestion of how to make the world a better place by returning to socialism/communism. And I feel that psychobabbling is the proper place to explain my motives.

It is not so, that I have any wish to start an ideological fight. It's all the same to me, if people believe in this or that. What I object to, are the consequences of any power-centralised ideology being in charge.

What I have suggested here earlier can ofcourse also be counted as an ideology, and by some be considered as valueless. But my point is, that I do not refer to any holy book (be it religious or political); I have all the time advocated a personal, open approach, with room for doubt and criticism and stressing the individual responsibility.

And even that is not my main point. What made me so hostile elsewhere is the fact, that should this proposed miracle cure for human failings take over, I (and a lot of other people) would very quick be put at a "rehabilitation camp" at gunpoint, so I could learn the error of my ways. Something MY ideas hardly would lead to, if they by some chance became popular.

I strongly protest against even considering the idea, that anybody should have the right to mess with my life or my mind, as long as I don't harm anybody else and follow the general (somewhat democratic) rules in my culture.

To my knowledge all experiments in socialism/communism have ended up at best as practical fiascos and at worst as totalitarian nightmares.

That McCarthy did almost the same in US 50 years ago, and the christian church all over Europe in the middle ages does not justify any socialist"revolution" leading to the same result only with a new name. This is not a question of "if you're not with us, you're against us". It's a question of letting any person, who wants so, having the right to decide about his/her private life. Define this as an extreme leftist or rightist philosophy, if you like (both are possible).

Because monopol-capitalism is a dysfunctional system, it doesn't make socialism the more correct.

As Ham once remarked: "Ofcourse all for your own good", when we discussed predatory behaviour. Anybody suggesting an ideology leading to results of this kind, I will consider either so dumb as to be pitied, or someone climbing shoulders to get higher in the local alpha-male power hierachy.

I'm willing to take a discussion here, should anybody have examples of FUNCTIONAL power-centralised ideologies manifested in life. Small or big.

quote:For an antimatter proton there exists a more immediate opposite: The antimatter electron, which will give an electric zero with the proton. So the
zero idea still holds.

This might hold true were all the atoms in the known universe Hydrogen atoms, but the simple one proton (positive, or in the case of anti-matter, negative) to one electron (negative, or again for anti-matter, positive) comes unravled as soon as you get to Helium. One proton and two electrons. Either way, the balance is lost, unless someone can find sufficient anti-matter mass to offset the already know mass of positively charged matter in th universe.

quote:As I said in my last post, it is not possible to use models as effect/cause in chaos. Time does not exist, neither does matter, energy or space. So in chaos there can be no before or after, no cause or effect, as we know these principles from inside the universe. It is quite possible, that chaos has its own inner system for functioning, but it will be so strange, that it will be impossible for us to understand it with our normal consciousness.

The problem I have with this, is that it is a theory that has no solid basis to prove or disprove. You may get 'beep'ed at me for saying this, but prove or disprove God. Basically what you describe is the complete opposite of what God, the Great Spirit, or pretty much any other "supreme being" would represent, in that such a being would be all parts of matter, energy, time, space, and dimension, all at the same time. Neither can be proven nor disproven and thus the forever theologicl debate over "God's" existence.

Regarding communism/socialism... I have made comments before stating my views on this touchy subject. Communism/socialism in it's truest, purest form as prescribed by Lenin, is total harmony and social perfection. Two problems exist. 1) ALL MUST CHOOSE TO BE A PART OF THIS TYPE OF SOCIAL ORDER FOR IT TO FUNCTION. 2) It is the nature of man to seek to improve himself, often this means finances, and personal finances don't work in a communist structure, thus what we saw in the old USSR.

quote:Isn't it just typical of FSUW to react this way. Being obstinate, threatening and hostile. In spite of the fact, that all three will be dead from pneumonia in less than a year. Try Tanyas next time, it's my impression, that they are more agreeable.

Well swede, as we all know, slavic women are a hearty lot and quite adept at enduring the cold, especially when gazing into the shimmering blue waters of a swimming pool although the shimmer comes from a layer of ice). They seem to acheive an almost Transendental state... it's spooky!

Today was apparently one to take note of. My butler Alfred (his real name is Frank, but I call him Alfred because of the Batman thing I have going on...),told me he observed the three Olgas watching lesbian porn on pay-per-view. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

I believe, it would take much more than this, for me to be 'beeb'ed' with you. You are not intruding in my life or threatening me in any way. That we don't agree on everything isn't a problem, it's just great to exchange opinions with you.

" The problem I have with this, is that it is a theory that has no solid basis to prove or disprove. You may get 'beep'ed at me for saying this, but prove or disprove God. Basically what you describe is the complete opposite of what God, the Great Spirit, or pretty much any other "supreme being" would represent, in that such a being would be all parts of matter, energy, time, space, and dimension, all at the same time. Neither can be proven nor disproven and thus the forever theologicl debate over "God's" existence."

You're right, it's not possible to prove or disprove a supreme being on the basis of my theory. That is "prove" or "disprove" in the traditional sense. A completely different epistemology is needed.

I'm not quite sure, if I got the meaning of the second part of it. Starting with: "Basically......etc".

My interpretation is that "god" (or maybe "mind") is all the parts of the universe put back together in harmony. Is this what we agree or disagree on?

In any case, what kind of evidence would you normally accept to accept proof of anything? Because there exist different ways of "proving" things, depending on what parameters you choose to use for proof.

I'm fairly sure, that helium has two protons, but I'll have to find the information somewhere, before I can be definite.

Concerning socialism/communism I believe, I'm not too far from your opinion (apart from that I would like to own my own home, clothes, vehicle and other personal items, plus having the chance to run a small private enterprise by myself).The theory is OK, but so is christian love, and ideas of total freedom. But to make an ideology functional, it must take human nature into consideration. Otherwise it's wishthinking and you will need to brainwash people to make them fit the system, instead of the system fitting people.

In any case my objections to socialism is mostly based on the pragmatic results it has shown, when it has been practised.

As you maybe remember, I am myself positive to anarchy, but I do not propagate for it, because I know, it's unrealistic to think it would function.

You know more about politics, than I do. Does the original communism or socialism allow for political competition?
I would be doubtful about accepting a one-party system.

This happens more and more in Germany. 99% of suicides after separation/divorce is done by men!

Now I want to do some remarks about sextourism. There are also feminine sextourists. You can watch them in Morocco or Egypt, older European ladies enjoying to have an affair with a youngster from Morocco or Egypt ... I have no problems with it!

I have only problems with pedofiles and pimps.

And I stick to my political basic position that there had not been prostitution with pimps and children prostitution and children pornography and all these mafia and dirty business structures in the ex socialist countries in Europe. That's why only a real socialist society terminates with the product sex, the paid service sex. As long as profit and making money by exploting other people is the central issue of our society and we accept this ... all measures against aids or abuse of children and women and youngsters and whoever is only a little bit cosmetics to make it look a bit better and a bit "democratic" and a bit "human" or whatever.

First I must emphasize that I never consciously have used a prostitute's services, and probably never will. I'm telling this to demonstrate, that I have no personal, sexual advantages from the existence of prostitution. So I agree with Jens' STARTING point, that the mainproblem is about pedophily and organised, criminal prostitution, where the girls are misused in some ways.

But to suggest, that a totalitarian system like socialism/communism should be the answer to that problem is preposterous. As far as I know, prostitution was forbidden in FSU. That is, prostitution for the common person. Those in the upper echelon certainly didn't abstain from using the possibility.

Let me tell you a little story: When I was a child, my father owned a very big, and internationally famous furrier's shop. We are talking about furcoats, which would cost up to a couple of hundred grand ($) in today's money. At first his customer's were the typical american millionaires with their status-seeking wives. As american authorities later put prohibitive import taxes on such luxury items, this market suddenly disappeared, and my father believed, that this was the end of it. But no, a new type of customers turned up. The topdogs from Sovjet, with their young bimbos, started buying these stinking expensive coats.

This shows two things. First that the alpha-males of Sovjet economically misused their position just as much as alpha-males do everywhere (no matter what power structure their are in). What the 'beeb' is this kind of behaviour? In a situation where ordinary people lived miserable lives, some sociopaths could spend enormous amounts of money on FURCOATS (my father had 80 employed, so we're talking about a lot of coats to keep this going).

(A small digression. I distance myself from killing other animals for the use of their fur).

Secondly it shows the through and through hypocricy existing in Sovjet. Two different set of rules existed. One for the common wo/man and one for the alphas. There's no need for a private maffia in such a system. The political bosses nicely filled out that niche.

That was a firsthand information; the next is something I personally can't verify, and possibly could be propanganda. As far as I know, Mao was known to have a preference for quite young girls. If that is true, where's the truth in the clich?s we get about the perfection about communism? The alpha male is allowed habits, which are officially condemned.

I know, you have covered your back by saying (Cit.): "That's why only a real socialist society terminates with the product sex, the paid service sex."

As you may remember, I earlier asked for examples of FUNCTIONAL communist/socialist systems. So what IS a "REAL" socialist society?

You start with saying (cit.): " .....older European ladies enjoying to have an affair with a youngster from Morocco or Egypt ... I have no problems with it!" You have no problems with it, fine with me (or maybe this is only acceptable for woman buying sex, and not men). But later you propose that only real socialist societies terminates with the "paid service sex".

How do you want it? You have no problems with it,....or..... real socialist societies terminate it. You can't have both!

As I see it, you're just being demagogic, both confusing your own issues and sneaking in less defendable points by equalising (cit.): "all measures against aids or abuse of children and women and youngsters and whoever ......." with "...the paid service sex". That almost everybody would agree to stop aids and abuse of other people goes without saying, but adding the subject of prostitution into this by "the backdoor" won't go home here. You are not home in your local socialist-cell, where that kind of oratory tricks will be accepted without comment.

In general my personal opinion about people recommending totalitarian ideologies is, that such people do it because their own lives are so small, miserable and empty that they only can find satisfaction from trying to give "good advices" (often at gunpoint) to others, who usually are happier or wiser, than they are themselves. And ofcourse ALWAYS ...."for our own good".... It's nothing but a manifestation of a power-trip, and I do not need any "big brother" in my life.

I do not have any special political ideology; I have and will vote (as long as voting is an option) according to the actual situation. I vote after my conscience and whatever common sense I have. I do not see socialism/communism exclusively as the work of the devil; there were some redeeming aspects of it when it manifested in realpolitics (and the fundamental ideology is OK, albeit completely out of touch with the reality of human nature).

So skip the thirdrate propaganda clich?s and put out some tangibles like a theory of "real" socialism or pragmatic examples of socialist societies, where the system functions. Such I can respect and will answer to without showing PMS symptoms (sorry PeopleS, you're obviously not the only one).